Columbus, Ohio • Aug 29, 2014 • 80° Partly Cloudy

 Hot Links:

Intelligent design could be taught with Common Core’s repeal

Stephanie Hightow er, Columbus Urban League president and CEO

THE DAILY BRIEFING

 FitzGerald, Kasich ALMOST will share same stage at Friday gig

 REQUEST TO BUY THIS PHOTO

 #IceBucketChallenge

KYLE ROBERTSON | DISPATCH

 TEA time for Kasich

House Speaker William G. Batchelder, R-Medina, left, and Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, center, listen to testimony on a bill to eliminate the Common Core education standards in Ohio schools.

Buckeye Forum Podcast

By Catherine Candisky & Jim Siegel

The Dispatch public affairs team talks politics and tackles state and federal gov ernm ent issues in the Buckey e Forum podcast.

The Columbus Dispatch • Wednesday August 20, 2014 8:39 AM

YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW

 Group says Kasich evading records request

Comments: 46

529

181

1788

In what could reignite a controversy that raged about eight years ago, a bill to repeal Common Core education standards in Ohio would allow intelligent design and creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science classes. House Bill 597 says new state science standards must “prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another.” Rep. Andy Thompson, R-Marietta, a main bill sponsor, said the goal is not to mandate what must be taught but provide options for districts. “In many districts, they may have a different perspective on that, and we want to provide them the flexibility to consider all perspectives, not just on matters of faith or how the Earth came into existence, but also global warming and other topics that are controversial,” Thompson said. Like Dispatch Politics on Facebook and follow @OhioPoliticsNow on Twitter Asked if intelligent design — the idea that a higher authority is responsible for life — should be taught alongside evolution, Thompson said, “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate.” Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to push for the teaching of intelligent design around 2006. The language in the latest bill raises concern among those who say there is no credible evidence for intelligent design and it should not be taught in science class.

“It sounds exactly like the kind of things intelligent design and creationist promoters say,” said Patricia Princehouse, director of Case Western Reserve University’s Program in Evolutionary Biology. Meanwhile, as a House committee met again yesterday for hours more of testimony from Common Core opponents, Gov. John Kasich reiterated his support for the standards, saying there was a lot of misinformation about them. “I think all Ohioans want high standards, but they want those standards to be met by local school boards deciding what it is they can teach to get the students to meet those standards. And that’s exactly what we have in Ohio,” Kasich said. “These standards or curriculum, it’s not written by Washington, it’s not written by Columbus, it’s written by local school boards.” But Kasich stopped short of pledging to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Speaker William G. Batchelder, R-Medina, said he was not yet sure if the House has enough votes to pass the bill. “There’s some strife out there,” he said. “I was becoming convinced based on what my members were telling me that this was not just an attitude along the Indiana border. It’s much more widespread than that.” House Minority Leader Tracy Maxwell Heard, D-Columbus, said the legislative process has been politicized: “We’re here because Republicans are losing to tea party candidates, not because they have a sense of urgency around education.” For a second day, supporters and opponents of Common Core education standards swarmed the Statehouse yesterday “House Bill 597 will totally disrupt and reverse the progress that has been made in classrooms across Ohio,” Stephanie Hightower, president and chief executive officer of the Columbus Urban League, said at a news conference held by supporters. Hightower resigned as president of the Columbus School Board in 2005 after pulling her son from the district and sending him to private school. “The reason why I took my kid out of public school and resigned my position with the school board at the time was because we didn’t have these kinds of standards in place to ensure that my son could then go on to college and be successful in college.” Common Core supporters say Ohio’s new standards for math and English/language arts move away from shallow learning and memorization and encourage students to do more critical thinking and problem solving. Such skills, they say, will better prepare students for college and careers. Opponents argue the standards are a federal mandate for what is taught in schools, eroding control of local school boards and stifling creativity among students and teachers. The Ohio Board of Education was among the first to approve Common Core in 2010, a joint project of the nation’s governors and school chiefs. The federal government has provided funding and incentives for states to develop tests and implement the standards. Forty-three states are implementing the standards, and the rest either never approved them or rescinded them. House Bill 597 would keep Common Core for this school year but prohibit the corresponding student testing. For the next two years, schools would switch to standards used in Massachusetts before it adopted Common Core. Meanwhile, the Ohio Board of Education would develop new state standards to use in the 2017-2018 school year. Before the House Rules Committee yesterday, Sarah Fowler, a state school board member from Rock Creek, said, “As my constituents become more informed, many are expressing outrage at the obliteration of local control and personal privacy.” Fowler, a home-school graduate, said that during the past two years she has run across few teachers who support Common Core. But most, she said, are afraid to speak out in opposition over fear of being fired.

Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, said teachers absolutely have a right to speak out. While a few might not like the standards, the vast majority have embraced them, she said, noting that teachers’ views are being misrepresented in the hearings. Both the Ohio Federation of Teachers and Ohio Education Association passed resolutions supporting the Common Core standards. “None of this comes from the federal government as those who misunderstand Common Core have stated,” Cropper said. “Do not let those who are politically motivated or who simply do not understand this opportunity continue to generate fear and confusion.” Dispatch Reporter Joe Vardon contributed to this story. [email protected] @ccandisky [email protected] @phrontpage

Favorite

Print Story

11

WEEKLY ADS

SPORTS AUTHORITY

FOOD LION

WALMART

Great Savings on Fitness and Team Sports Equipment!

Celebrate Labor Day With Great Savings

The Best Styles for Back-to-School Shopping

T h is W eek On ly

Ex pir es T om or r ow

V a lid u n t il Sep 0 6

COMMENTS Login or register to post a comment. RECONCILE RECONCILE (RECONCILE)

Ohio...the new Mississippi. See what happens when you pack the legislature with conservative extremists? You get what you deserve. You get what you voted for.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 6 :3 1 :1 8 .0

MITCHELL SCHWARTZ ([email protected]) flag

Plain and simple folks. Creationism is based on religious beliefs and has no place in the science classroom. There is no scientific fact to support creationism. Just another political ploy to force religion on unassuming children, religion should be taught at home, period. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 6 :4 6 :2 5 .0

TIM MCGEE (KIRBYSMITH)

Mitchell. I believe and have strong faith in God and Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. God created science.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 7 :1 0 :5 9 .0

NOT GIVEN (NOTGVN)

Mr McGee you say God created science but you fail to specify. Zeus, Odin, Jupiter or perhaps Gozer the Gozarian?

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 7 :3 8 :4 2 .0

JIM VALLEY (JIMVALLEY) flag

I have no objection to students being made aware of the "theory" of intelligent design, if only because so many of their fellow citizens believe its tenets, but NOT IN SCIENCE CLASS, for pity's sake! Intelligent design is not science; if anything it is anti-science. The subject belongs in a religion or philosophy class. Would the people who want to force this religious belief to be taught in science class object if THEY were forced to have an atheist visit their children's Sunday School classes to present the case against the existence of God? Are you kidding?? They would scream bloody murder and wail about "liberal indoctrination". (They say this about ALGEBRA classes now, for pity's sake!) We must not dumb down our schools to incorporate irrational beliefs and teach them as science. Are we Louisiana all of a sudden? 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 7 :5 5 :5 9 .0

JIM VALLEY (JIMVALLEY) flag

Tim's strange statement that "God created science" (what on earth can this mean?) is exactly the kind of empty, content-free hooey that these people want to teach as if it were science. For Tim, "God created (insert random noun)" is always going to be true, since in his view God created EVERYTHING. This tells us nothing whatever, except that Tim has an extremely simplistic view of the issue at hand. Religious people often terminate an argument they are losing with something like "Well, that's just God's mystery", as if that settles it. I sense that same attitude in Tim's argument-settling "God created science" remark. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 8 :0 3 :1 4 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN) flag

Well JV, If you want to keep Intelligent Design discussions out of the classroom because it is only a "theory", then I guess you should also want Macro Evolution discussions removed from the classrooms as well, since they are nothing more than a "theory". Until someone finds the missing link that ties that steaming puddle of goo into fish, then reptiles, then mamals & birds, it is all just speculation. Interesting that no one has found anything in the fossil record yet. Maybe that's because is isn't there. Hmmm..... 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 8 :1 8 :5 7 .0

T D (COLUMBUS)

Jon, can you prove that a "god" provided a spark to this steaming puddle of goo? Oh yeah, I forgot that dinosaurs were created 6,000 years ago. My bad.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 8 :3 2 :1 8 .0

F LOUNDER (FLOUNDER) flag

Tim McGee (kirbysmith) wrote: "Mitchell. I believe and have strong faith in God and Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. God created science."....Happy for you that you have your crutch. The bible is one of the best book of legends and exaggerated stories ever written. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 8 :3 2 :5 3 .0

MICHAEL ZICKAR (MIKEZICKAR)

Does John Kasich support teaching creationism in science classrooms?

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 8 :3 8 :2 4 .0

F LOUNDER (FLOUNDER)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 8 :3 9 :4 1 .0

HEATHER MARTIN (HDMARTIN88) flag

If I wanted my kid to be educated on religious beliefs I'd send her to church, or to a religious private school. Religion has not and should not have any part in an education in a public school. And it's true, this is what voter's get. Start voting differently if you want different results! 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :2 4 :3 2 .0

JOSH W (JOSH_W)

Bring back Flying Spaghetti Monster 101!! May his noodley appendage caress thee!

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :4 0 :3 1 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN) flag

TD: So, " ....dinosaurs were created 6,000 years ago..." What the heck does that have to do with anything? Does it say that there is nothing that created dinosaurs? Does it give us a missing link? Where is your missing link that proves macro evolution? Macro Evolution is nothing but a theory. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :4 1 :4 9 .0

READER READER (READER) flag

What I understood Tim McGee to be saying is that many of us who believe devoutly in God the Creator (by whatever name) have no need to try to limit God to a simplistic understanding of fairy tales. God's creation, which includes all of what we can glean and understand through science is vast and wonderful--from how a spark or something else moved the first life in a mud puddle (to oversimplify), to the movement of the stars and planets--something else the religionist fought a war over, and lost. IOW--a belief in God does not require the rejection of science. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :4 4 :0 7 .0

JIM VALLEY (JIMVALLEY) flag

Jon, Jon, Jon. Always the wrong answer. Always. You begin your comment with "Well JV, If you want to keep Intelligent Design discussions out of the classroom". Did you even READ my comment? Please look at the first sentence carefully. I said I want intelligent design kept out of SCIENCE CLASS. My third sentence is "The subject belongs in a religion or philosophy class". You turned this into "you want to keep Intelligent Design discussions out of the classroom", which is the EXACT opposite of what I said. Then you criticize me for saying something I didn't say. You people have such thick skulls!! It's maddening. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :4 7 :0 0 .0

SUSAN RILEY (SULEE) flag

Public schools were established so that ALL children could get an education. Not all kids are religious, and for those who are, their beliefs vary greatly. Therefore, if you teach Creationism and Intelligent Design in a PUBLIC school, you are teaching religion, preaching Christianity to be exact. Not the type of education a Buddhist, an Agnostic, or a Muslin family would appreciate. This is why PAROCHIAL schools were established, so that families who want their children to be taught religion in schools will have that option. Teaching Creationism and ID in PUBLIC schools is illegal because it promotes Christianity (or are these folks busy writing curricula that include Buddhist, Muslim, Hindi, etc. beliefs as well?). 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :5 0 :5 6 .0

JIM VALLEY (JIMVALLEY) flag

Conservatives have a terrible time with the word "theory", always failing to recognize that it has one meaning in common speech (basically "speculation") and another meaning in the scientific world (basically "a repeatedly proven, never disproven hypothesis", which is as close as science gets to declaring something a "fact"). For example, I have a "theory" (common meaning) that Jon is not a very deep thinker, whereas the "theory" of gravity is a set of statements and equations that repeatedly produce reliable, useful results and can be considered "fact". Now look at Jon's comment, in which he uses the word "theory" twice. The first assumes the common definition, the second refers to a scientific theory. Clearly, Jon does not realize that he has used the same word in two different ways in order to draw a false comparison. But I do. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :5 5 :2 9 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN) flag

Sorry JV. After I hit the Go button, I realized I should have more carefully stated "SCIENCE classroom". Too bad we can't edit our posts. I wasn't trying to accuse you of saying anything that you didn't say. But I WAS challenging you to hold Macro Evolution to the same standard as Intelligent Design. There is evidence for each theory to say that it is true, but there is no proof. They are both unproven theories, so they should both be correctly placed in a Philosophy class, yes? 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :5 7 :0 8 .0

DANA PRICE (HISTORYMAJOR) flag

I believe in God and I believe God created everything: the Big Bang, evolution, etc. However, that is my belief, there is no way, currently, to scientifically prove God's existence. I am opposed to teaching creationism/intelligent design alongside evolution or any other science. It's faith, it's not science. I would, however, encourage classrooms to allow discussion and debate among students where topics like creationism can be brought up. My high school science teacher stuck to the facts, but he occasionally allowed a class day to be used to discuss abstract ideas. We once debated which was longer - eternity or infinity. It was a fun break from formulas and Latin words, and I feel like it challenged us to think critically to be able to defend our ideas and consider and/or challenge the ideas of others. I could see him allowing a evolution/creation debate. As long as the teacher can keep the discussions civil, it should be allowed. But teaching it as science fact? No, definitely not. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 0 9 :5 9 :2 9 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN)

Flounder: I read your Evolution 101 article (Unlike many who argue here, I believe in considering all sides of a discussion). It looks like they are saying that they have learned a lot about the theory of evolution, but still cannot connect the dots. Maybe someday they will be able to connect the dots that prove Macro Evolution to be true, but I doubt they will. Either way, it is just a theory until that happens.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :0 1 :2 3 .0

RONALD L SOLOVE (REACKSHUNARY) flag

As a public elementary school student in the 1950s and as a member of a religious minority, I had Christian doctrine thrust upon me in my classrooms in the form of prayer and instruction, which greatly confused me and made me feel disloyal to my family and my faith. As a society, we have made great progress since that time in separating and insulating secular from religious education in the public arena. And now, in 2014, we again must stand and protect our children from indoctrination in the public arena. Religious doctrine belongs in the religious context, in homes and houses of worship. Keep your attempts at proselytizing out of the schools that are supported by public dollars; keep your doctrinaire hands off my grandchildren! 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :0 9 :2 1 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN) flag

Dana: I assume your science classroom had one of those charts that showed how simple organisms morphed into fish, reptiles, mammals, apes, cavemen, and FINALLY modern man. I know my classrooms, and textbooks, had that chart. If your science teacher only stuck to the facts, this chart would have been tossed into the trash. But my guess is that he used that chart to teach you that it represented FACT. I don't really blame him though. I'm sure that's what his teachers taught him, and he just trusted them. Facts are proven, just as JV said. This chart, as well as all of the other Macro Evolution teaching is pure speculation. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :1 2 :1 5 .0

JOE MALONE (GARBONZO) flag

According to the National Academy of Science evolution is a fact - "In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions." http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :1 3 :1 6 .0

WILLIAM DONALDSON (BILLL)

If you wish your children to learn about Creationism/Intelligent Design; the answer is simple. Send them to church.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :2 6 :5 3 .0

MARK DILLON (MRSMD1HUSBAND) flag

I'm Conservative and I'm completely against Common Core but I don't believe that Creationism or Intelligent Design has any place in the science classroom. Both are based on FAITH, not science, and would be better placed in a class dedicated to global cultures or philosophy. I think that even suggesting that "a bill to repeal Common Core education standards in Ohio would allow intelligent design and creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science

classes" is a desperate and misleading attempt to keep the Common Core Standards which is losing more and more support every day. It's not just Conservatives who dislike Common Core. I have plenty of liberal friends, several of them teachers, who, after having been exposed to Common Core, want nothing to do with it. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :2 7 :3 5 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN) flag

Joe, I think you're confusing Micro Evolution - Proven Fact, with Macro Evolution - Theory with virtually no scientific evidence. Micro Evolution studies how animals like horses & zebras have evolved from a common ancestor through the process of natural selection. Macro Evolution tries to prove that animals like fish & birds have a common ancester if you trace it back far enough. And it teaches that life came from nothing, without any cause. So far, this is pure fantasy, since no scientist has yet found any evidence in the fossil record that indicates a link between two different categories of animals. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :5 0 :3 2 .0

JIM VALLEY (JIMVALLEY) flag

Mark, is the claim that Common Core, like (apparently) Obamacare, is SO horrible, SO ill-conceived, and SO fatally flawed that it simply cannot be fixed, tweaked or amended in any way and must be scrapped entirely? This allor-nothing approach from the right bothers me. Can't Americans FIX things instead of just throwing them away? 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 0 :5 0 :4 2 .0

JON BEERMAN (BEERMAN)

When I see Liberal educators joining with Conservatives to fight against Common Core, it tells me that there is something very wrong with the plan. People don't easily let go of their political bias.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 1 :2 5 :1 1 .0

JOHN CONDO (HILTCONDO1)

we have churches ,we have Catholic schools let them teach this stuff.Public schools and going down the tube fast,thy don't want to learn the truth that their problem

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 1 :4 5 :4 6 .0

MARK DILLON (MRSMD1HUSBAND) flag

Well JV, usually it's better to discard programs that are fatally flawed or dysfunctional and start over from scratch than it is to try and fix them. Massachusetts already had the best education standards in the nation but the temptation of the Race to the Top funds to accept and implement the incomplete, untested, and barely college ready Common Core standards just goes to prove that if you take money, put it on a fishing hook & line, and wave it in a legislator's face more often than not they will bite regardless of consequences. I had to laugh at Stephanie Hightower's statement "The reason why I took my kid out of public school and resigned my position with the school board at the time was because we didn't have these kinds of standards in place to ensure that my son could then go on to college and be successful in college". What a bunch of bologna. Apparently honesty isn't one of Stephanie Hightower's virtues. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 1 :5 7 :1 0 .0

MICHAEL HAMILL (ICONOCLAST)

Deja vu on "Intelligent Design" (groan). This is one clear sign of the degradation of our state legislature. It's pretty dismaying that some of them want kids to be taught ideas that are not supported by science. Those of us who want students to learn real science have some work ahead.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :0 9 :2 1 .0

READER READER (READER) flag

I believe that this discussion demonstrates how poorly-conceived and slap-dash this particular piece of legislation is. Remember that these same folks will be in charge of appointing the committee to oversee the writing of new standards (just to be able to say that they are NOT Common Core--not because there are any particularly Ohiooriented differences to mathematics or the uses of the English language). And this same body will be the ones who must approve those standards, once written. Teaching creationism as science, sure the Tea Party will vote for that! All you local control folks--think carefully. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :1 9 :3 0 .0

DANA PRICE (HISTORYMAJOR) flag

Jon, the science teacher I mentioned taught only chemistry and physics, so no biological charts in his classroom. However, I tried to think back to my biology and general science classes and I don't recall that chart. But I came up in Appalachia in the 70s (aka The Bible Belt), so I also don't recall being taught anything more than cursory information about evolution. What I know is from my own reading and documentary viewing. I agree that macroevolution is unproven and may never be proven. I don't think that means it didn't happen or invalidates the teaching of evolution any more than the inability of science to prove God's existence means God doesn't exist. If evolution is taught thoroughly and with open discussion (i.e. the critical thinking that Common Core supposedly is designed to encourage), then its scientific limitations should be noted. But again, there is no place for teaching ID/Creationism in a science class. Go to church/synagogue/temple/mosque etc. for that. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :1 9 :5 3 .0

GODS ATHEIST (GODSATHEIST)

The only way the bible thumpers can spread their voodoo is by brainwashing their children. Now they want to brainwash every child. If the bible was the word of a god it would have been written by a god, not by men. Wake up.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :2 6 :2 4 .0

READER READER (READER) flag

Jon Beerman--opponents on the left and the right have two different oxes being gored. Those on the right hate the big bad feds--and despite the fact that the feds only incentivized something that the states wanted to do but couldn't get past the impasse of who goes first and who's in charge--and see Common Core as pure evil because of it. In large part this comes not from any real familiarity with either its contents or real knowledge of the process of how it came about. But boy can they tell some stories on it (no teacher involved in writing--false; developmentally unsound--although they can never elaborate as to what exactly in the standards is developmentally inappropriate; nobody understands the math--based on anecdotes from curriculum BASED on knowledge in the Common Core, although any school/district/state/teacher can write their own lessons to teach the content and the smart ones do; data-mining-completely false; conversion to homosexuality--laughably false; collection of family religious information--again laughably false). Those on the left tend to be mistrustful of sameness, but teachers particularly have associated it with concurrent accountability systems that include student test scores in evaluating teachers. Ditching the Common Core won't change that, but it still gets all rolled into one ball. I would also suggest that teachers are really going to hate the legislature's move to throw out all the work they have done in converting to the Common Core in order to convert to the Massachusetts standards for two years and then tackle yet another new system--with brand new tests. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :3 2 :5 3 .0

JOE MALONE (GARBONZO) flag

Jon - The problem is trying make macro and micro evolution two different things. In the scientific community it's simply evolution. The use of micro and macro is used when looking at different scales (time and bio diversity). A great example of 'macro' evolution is the relationship to birds to dinosaurs. Two vastly different groups of animals that are known relatives based on observations of millions of years of fossil records. Now, what about those missing links. A report done in 2009 by Arizona State University recorded 16,969 new species of plants and animals found that year alone, including a new 200 pound antelope. Those are living breathing creatures living around us now. It takes time to find the ones that died off millions of years ago. Science make predictions (not wild guesses or fantasies) based on the information available to connect the dots. Continued research into those predictions will prove or disprove them, and that's the point research. Remember when the sun revolved around the earth or the idea of spontaneous generation? So, if you look and extinct animal A and living animal B and say there is no possible way they are related, you've probably skipped over the countless known and unknown creatures between the two. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :4 2 :1 2 .0

TIMOTHY SMITH (TIMOTHY_SMITH)

I would like to understand specifically why some people are so opposed to Common Core. I have read a little about it, but not enough to understand the objections, other than the general principle that some have that decisions affecting schools should be kept at the local level. Are there specific standards, or ways of implementing those standards, that are objectionable? What, exactly, are the problems? Just as an FYI, I am not a supporter of Common Core - I actually don't know enough about it to support it or not.

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 2 :4 3 :0 6 .0

DARICE ALLARD (DNA1)

Is is just me or does the photo of the 3 fellows above remind you of the old saying, "Hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil"? Let's leave intellilgent design where it belongs, in the church and its teachings. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 3 :4 9 :3 5 .0

flag

SUSAN RILEY (SULEE)

DNA1: Brilliant! I went back & looked at the pic; you nailed it!

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 5 :1 7 :4 0 .0

SUSAN RILEY (SULEE) flag

For anyone who is brave enough to leave politics aside for a while and to really discover what is included in Ohio's Common Core standards, may I suggest the following website. Be forewarned, however, there is a LOT of reading ahead of you, a great deal more than the talking points put forth by your political parties: http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Ohio-s-New-Learning-Standards/Ohios-New-Learning-Standards 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 5 :2 4 :3 1 .0

VAUGHN MANCHA (VAUGHN) flag

"Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things." Einstein became a deist when he realized the universe had a beginning and thus a beginner. Who are we to disagree? 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 0 1 6 :0 7 :2 2 .0

CAL FRYE (CAL_FRYE)

Am I the only one who sees this bill as also prohibiting the State or school district from prohibiting the teaching of Marxism alongside capitalism? Surely that can't be what the Representatives have in mine...

flag

2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 2 1 2 :2 8 :0 0 .0

ANTRON ARGAIV (ANTRONARGAIV) flag

"God created science" is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe...if you believe in God, why not just say he created the entire framework we call "the universe" and then set it in motion under the laws of science. That makes the religious folks happy, and doesn't affect how we do science, since scientists don't care who "created" science, it's just a tool and a process that we can use to explain why things happen the way they do. What I don't understand, and I would like the authors of House Bill 597 to explain, is the following text: "The standards in science shall ... focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes;" Scientific processes (or The Scientific Method) are key to critical thinking. The understanding of how to design and perform an experiment, how to form a hypothesis, and how to modify that hypothesis based on observations which do not agree with it, are absolutely key to learning. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 6 1 3 :0 4 :4 9 .0

SCOTT MCCLURE (SMCCLURE61) flag

Jon Beerman - You are correct that evolution is a theory, you are however incorrect in your assumption of what the word theory means. From Dictionary.com, this is the scientific definition of the word Theory. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena Also from Dictionary.com, this is the layman's definition of the word theory so they can justify an argument. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. A theory is simply the best explanation we have at a given time. It does not means its invalid, it means this is what we know to be true now. Part of your arguments seem to stem from the lack of ability to prove macro evolution. You sir are quibbling over terms. Macro or micro, evolutionary theory is both. You can't have one without the other. However you may nitpick, there has never been proof of the theory of creation. There are no facts to indicate it happened. No independent observance of something being created out of nothing. There has however been direct observance of animals and plants evolving to overcome some challenge. 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 7 1 8 :5 5 :5 8 .0

ALAN GROVER (GROOVIMUS) flag

"Ohio...the new Mississippi. See what happens when you pack the legislature with conservative extremists? You get what you deserve. You get what you voted for." I'm advising bigots who are pushing materialism on school kids: there is not a single mention anywhere in the ID literature of a "higher authority" as claimed in the above piece. If you want to teach YOUR children that nature is stupid enough to create junk DNA go ahead - if you want to teach YOUR kids that nature is stupid enough to have created itself go ahead. Your Darwinist cult is being ripped apart by science itself, in other words reality: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/paper_finds_fun089301.html 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -2 8 1 3 :2 1 :0 2 .0